Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Tehran hostage crisis
Roles of resolution in conflict
Impacts of Iran hostage crisis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Tehran hostage crisis
The aim of this essay is to compare two examples of international mediation and determine what were the strengths and weaknesses of the mediator/s in each case. The chosen cases that will be discussed in this paper are Iranian hostage crisis of 1979 with Algerian representatives as mediators between the United States and Iran, and the Camp David case with American president Jimmy Carter as a mediator between Egypt and Israel.
In 1979 the embassy of the United States in Tehran was attacked by a group of Iranian students who held the staff of the embassy as hostages. This event put a strain on Tehran-Washington diplomatic relations, which subsequently were completely cut. Therefore, Algeria was chosen as the official mediator, because it was already playing important role in “ non-existing” diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States. Not only the Algerians were familiar with the issue, but also the delegation consisted of four experienced and high-positioned professional negotiators. The siege of the embassy continued for 444 days, and ended on 20 January 1981 after successful mediation exhibited by Algerian representatives, all the hostages were finally released.
In contrast, the dispute between Egypt and Israel was ongoing for many years and there was no real urgency to solve issue. It was an initiative of newly elected President of the United States Jimmy Carter, who had a strong belief that the peace in the Middle East should be central objective of the US foreign policy, despite that he was warned about many previous failed attempts to find a solution for this issue.
Nevertheless, after thorough study of the subject Carter came up with an idea of a “just settlement”, which meant that Israel had to go back to th...
... middle of paper ...
...erent mediation approaches were exhibited by Jimmy Carter and Algerian representatives. Notwithstanding, both processes were successful, they did have their weaknesses.
However, it is important to note that “The success of mediation by no means depends solely on the efforts of the mediator, but rather on whether the parties to the dispute agree to the mediator's plan of resolution.” the two mediation cases are different , approach of mediators? had it not been a president of the USA (biggest ally of Israel) (footnote), probably the agreement would not be able to reach. Despite every weakness of Jimmy Carter’s mediation, the agreement was reached at Camp David and subsequently signed.obviously his strenght of mediation helped him to do so(money offers and threaths of failing). His main goal for the gathering was the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel.
This completely changed the perception of the United States within Iran. Many Iranians believed that “American influence and power made a mockery of their national autonomy and desecrated their religious beliefs” (Farber, 37). The real struggle came once the Shah sought asylum in the U.S. Iran believed this to be a betrayal and demanded the Shah be released to the revolutionaries. Due to the fact that the United States did not refuse the Shah, the revolutionaries took the embassy in Tehran and all of the people that worked there hostage. One of the hostages wrote back to his parents during the crisis “‘We will not be set free until shah is released and the longer we stay here like this the better is a chance for something terrible to happen’” (Farber, 156). The siege was led by Iranian students who supported the revolution and the Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader that the revolution had selected to take the place of the
The United States poured millions of dollars into Iran’s economy and the Shah’s armed forces, overlooking the rampant corruption in government and well-organized opposition. By early 1979, the Ayatollah had murdered the Shah and taken back power of the government. A group of students who took the American embassy hostage on November 4th, 1979, turned the embassy over to the religious leaders. Carter knew he must take action in order to regain the American embassy and the hostages, but with all of the military cutbacks, the rescue attempt was a complete failure and embarrassment. It took the United States 444 days to rescue the hostages.
...w the United States’ close ally Shah. Countless modernizers were persecuted, arrested and executed. In November 52 United States diplomats were held hostage by student revolutionaries who’d seized the American embassy in Tehran. America took immediate action and seized all Iranian assets. The United States attempted to negotiate. The negotiation, to the dismay of the American people dragged on for 444 days. There was a large push for President Carter to use military forces as means of negotiations; he however opted for peaceful means, which proved to be unsuccessful. Finally in April 1980 the President sanctioned a rescue mission. The attempt failed due to technical difficulties, eight men died; as a result the nation became extremely unnerved. Carter's dialogue with Iran continued throughout 1980. This was yet another failure on Carter’s part to rectify an issue.
President Carter turned his attention to the Middle East after all the political issues and conflicts with countries such as the Soviet Union and Vietnam.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005. Print. The. The "Iran Hostage Crisis" History.com. A&E Television Networks, 2010.
November 4th, 1979 was a normal day for many people across the globe, however in Tehran, Iran a 444 day long journey had just begun for 60 plus Americans. Today, this issue is better known as the Iranian Hostage Crisis. This plight started with the United States' attempt to westernize Iran. Which resulted in severe backlash from Iran against the United States citizens. This quickly became a crisis for the United States and a scurry to try and save American lives.
...ainst with forty one abstentions – the General Assembly accorded Palestine non-member Observer State status in the United Nations (General Assembly GA/11317). This is a great thing to happen to the Palestine case because it will help them achieve what they need. In order to pass the vote two thirds of the countries have to vote towards statehood and the vote was just barely over the amount needed. It is great that all those years of being so persistent and pushing is finally paying off and that they will get their state. However the Israeli ambassador wants to solve the conflicts with the Palestinians without help from the United Nations, which may push back the chances of having a resolution reached.
In order to understand why the Iranian Hostage Crisis was inevitable, we have to look back at the US influence over Iran and its government. The United States wanted to modernize Iranian and to make this happen they had to have a Shah that would be open to new, modern ideas. The shah that eventually took over for the US was named Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Shah Pahlavi was in office before, but he had been weakened by the new parliament that was put into place, which weakened his rule. After 1953 the Shah was in full control and was supported by the US and Britain. Soon the oil was flowing again un...
Doctor William Ury is a first class negotiator and mediator. Coauthor of Getting to Yes, he is globally recognized and praised for his acuity and perspectives. He has been involved in negotiations and mediations not only in the US, but also in many places such as Venezuela (with President Hugo Chavez), Chechnya, Russia and Indonesia. He is the co-founder of Harvard’s Program on Negotiation and is a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Harvard Negotiation Project, which is a highly influent actor in the negotiation realm. In terms of education, he has a Bachelor of Art from Yale and a Doctorate of Philosophy from Harvard, both in social anthropology. He has conducted research on negotiation in the US and abroad. Thus, his background and experience allows him to support his arguments with personal case studies gathered during his research and from his own ne...
Watson, Stephanie. "Iranian Hostage Crisis." Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence and Security. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 2004. 158-60. U.S. History in Context. Web. 18 Apr. 2014.
M. E. McGuinness (Eds.), Words Over War: Mediation and Arbitration to Prevent Deadly Conflict (pp. 293-320). New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Ott, Marvin C. "Mediation as a Method of Conflict Resolution: Two Cases." International Organization 26.04 (1972): 595-618. JSTOR. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
The issue of Palestine and Israel is one that has been hotly contested for over a thousand years. The last fifty years have been especially important in the history of the Jewish people and Palestinians. Since the death of Yasser Arafat on the 11th of November 2004 , and the election of Mahmoud Abbas as his successor as leader of the Palestinian Authority, significant steps have been taken towards a lasting peace. This will hopefully lead to a conclusion of the second Palestinian intifada, which began in late September 2000, and to an end of the oppression of the Palestinian people by the Israeli Defense Forces. Both Jews and Arabs have suffered heavily from the conflict, thousands of innocent civilians have died on both sides, and peace is in the interests of all.
Although functions of mediators and arbitrators have several characteristics in common, there are significant instrumental differences that make them distinct from one another. Firstly, whereas the arbitration process is similar to litigation in its adversarial nature, in which parties have the objective to win the dispute, the fundamental goal of mediation is to bring the disputants to settlement through compromise and cooperation without finding a guilty party. In arbitration, parties compete against each other in “win-lose” situation. During mediation, parties work on mutually acceptable conditions with the assistance of a facilitator. In this process, mediators do not have power to make decisions, they work to reconcile the competing needs and interests of involved parties. The mediator’s tasks are to assist disputants to identify, understand, and articulate their needs and interests to each other (Christopher W. Moore,
Mediation is an extension of the negotiation process and shares some similarity with conciliation process.